I made the use of (multiple) Release Condidates more explicit in the
release plan.
Testing commons-pool standalone will be very usefull.
Be sure to try the performance test at:
commons-pool/src/test/org/apache/commons/pool/performance/PerformanceTest.java
Cheers
Dirk
Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
I'd like to propose a vote on the following release plan
for DBCP 2.0. This release plan can also be found
at:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/dbcp/RELEASE_PLAN_2_0.txt
Per the Jakarta/ASF guidelines (see
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html),
OK, I don't expect any problem.
New proposal:
Review: 1 October 2003 - 15 October 2003
Final vote 16 October 2003- 18 October 2003
Release: 19 October 2003
Dirk
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
I'd like to propose a vote on the following release plan
for DBCP 2.0. This release
I have the same question here as I did for DBCP: are there any backwards
incompatible changes that require a major release number change? I'd
prefer to keep the major number the same if possible.
FWIW, I haven't seen any incompatible changes in the DBCP or Pool commits
that I've reviewed.
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
OK, I don't expect any problem.
New proposal:
Review: 1 October 2003 - 15 October 2003
Do you plan to release an alpha or a beta at the start of the review
period ? That would be really useful :)
(I'd include the binary with a new TC 5 beta to get wide real world testing)
I'll tag make a release candidate for both components.
Expect an announcement in a day or two. (unless there are -1 votes)
Dirk
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
OK, I don't expect any problem.
New proposal:
Review: 1 October 2003 - 15 October 2003
Do you plan to release an alpha
Same response, I don't really have a strong feeling about it, just
wanted to keep in sync with DBCP (at least the mayor version).
OK, no incompatible changes = keep major number.
New proposal:
Release both DBCP pool as 1.1
Dirk
David Graham wrote:
I have the same question here as I did for
I'll tag make a release candidate for both components.
Expect an announcement in a day or two. (unless there are -1 votes)
Great. And I see that it will now be v1.1. +1 on the release plans. Will
test with James.
--- Noel
--- Dirk Verbeeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same response, I don't really have a strong feeling about it, just
wanted to keep in sync with DBCP (at least the mayor version).
Pool is independent from DBCP and doesn't need to depend on DBCP's version
numbers. Backwards incompatible changes
